How a U.N. Bid to Prevent Sexual Violence Turned Into a Spat Over Abortion

In an internal document, Trump officials threatened to reject an anti-rape measure over language on sexual and reproductive health.

U.S. President Donald Trump chairs a United Nations Security Council meeting in New York City on Sept. 26, 2018. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The Trump administration pressured Germany into watering down a United Nations resolution aimed at preventing rape in conflict situations, forcing it to remove language on sexual and reproductive health that key Trump administration officials say normalizes sexual activity and condones abortion, according to U.N.-based diplomats and an internal State Department cable reviewed by Foreign Policy.

The United States was set to veto the resolution, underscoring the growing rift between Washington and its European allies and the increasing U.S. isolation in multilateral institutions under President Donald Trump. But Germany relented and stripped the resolution of the language to secure the U.S. vote. It passed on Tuesday afternoon with 13 votes in favor. Two countries, Russia and China, abstained.

Trump administration officials say the term “sexual and reproductive health” refers to abortion. But other governments and advocacy groups dispute this view.

In behind-the-scenes negotiations in the run-up to a vote expected on Tuesday, other key elements of the U.N. resolution were removed, including establishing a U.N. monitoring body to report atrocities. The United States continued opposing the resolution over its use of the phrase “sexual and reproductive health,” according to the confidential cable, even without the mechanism.

A U.S. veto would have dealt a blow to Germany’s signature initiative during its rotating term on the Security Council presidency this month. The resolution was supported by a diverse group, including the German foreign minister, the Nobel Peace Laureates Nadia Murad and Denis Mukwege, and the human rights lawyer Amal Clooney.

“There is simply no excuse for continuing to fail those who have already been victimized—as well as those who continue to be at risk of—devastating levels of sexual violence in conflict,” said Mukwege and Murad in a new statement. Both spoke at Tuesday’s meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

The internal State Department cable, sent by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s office to the U.S. Embassy in Berlin and U.S. Mission to the U.N. on Tuesday morning, made clear how the German push has angered the Trump administration. The cable told U.S. diplomats to notify the German government of the U.S. intent to vote no on its U.N. Security Council Resolution on Sexual Violence in Conflict if it didn’t change language to address U.S. concerns

The cable criticizes Germany for conducting a “rushed process of negotiations characterized by artificial, abbreviated timelines that failed to permit member states, the United States included, to represent national positions or debate the complex issues related to them.”

PassBlue, an independent women-led journalism site covering the U.N., and the Guardian were first to report the U.S. push to veto the measure. The internal State Department cable has not been previously reported.

The cable says that Germany’s draft text, before it was changed hours later, crossed U.S. red lines: The United States “has consistently and clearly communicated red lines since the beginning of negotiations on Germany’s draft [Security Council resolution], which include: budget implications related to a new mechanism; references to the International Criminal Court (ICC); and references to sexual and reproductive health services.”

The State Department did not respond to request for comment.

U.N.-based diplomats tell Foreign Policy that alongside Germany, the United Kingdom and France pushed for the measure to include language on “sexual and reproductive health.”

Germany’s campaign showcases how Berlin is playing an increasingly assertive role in the international body, driving through changes to resolutions in an apparent attempt to pick up the slack from the Washington, where the administration is increasingly spurning multilateral organizations.

“This is definitely a moment where Germany and its EU allies are stepping up to show they stand beside multilateral values and principles even if the U.S. is walking away,” said Richard Gowan, the director of U.N. issues at the International Crisis Group think tank.

If the U.S. vetoed “the resolution, it [would have made] them look like the voice of the international community in contrast to the isolated U.S.”

Some experts on gender-related rights were incensed by the lengths the Trump administration appeared willing to go to quash the resolution. A U.S. veto at the U.N. Security Council on a subject such as this would have been highly unusual, U.N.-based diplomats said.

“The U.S. is turning its back fully and completely on human rights and … it’s not hiding it,” said Tarah Demant, the director of the Gender, Sexuality, and Identity Program at Amnesty International. “It’s forcefully displaying its absolute disregard for human rights, particularly for women. And it will go to extreme measures to do so.”

Jessica Neuwirth, a former special advisor on sexual violence to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in a statement that it is “unthinkable and bizarre to see the [United States] lining up with Russia and China to block efforts to strengthen the U.N.’s ability to effectively address rape in conflict and to provide sexual violence survivors with sexual and reproductive health services.”

“This resolution is about the [Rohingya] girls systematically raped in Myanmar, the Yezidi girls enslaved by ISIS, the Congolese girls who flock to Panzi Hospital seeking medical help and desperately needing comprehensive health services for the sexual violence they have endured,” said Neuwirth, now the head of a women’s advocacy think tank, The Sisterhood Is Global Institute

The State Department cable stresses that the United States “is strongly committed to preventing conflict-related sexual violence and holding responsible persons accountable.”

“We understand and agree that more needs to be done to deter the recurrence of such crimes and assist survivors. The United States plans to be supportive in shaping future action on this important issue,” the State Department cable says.

But it adds, “We cannot accept unamended explicit, or implicit, references to ‘sexual and reproductive health’” because “we do not support or promote abortion” in global women’s health.

The term “sexual and reproductive health” has been widely accepted and used in international institutions for decades.

Women’s rights advocacy groups and other nonprofit organizations dispute the Trump administration’s view that language on sexual and reproductive health condones abortion, and they say the international community can’t address sexual violence in conflict without acknowledging the importance of these issues.

“Any international response to rape as a weapon of war that doesn’t consider sexual and reproductive health rights is a false response, it’s an empty response,” said Demant of Amnesty International.

Trump administration officials have been trying for the past two years to strip language from U.N. General Assembly resolutions promoting sexual and reproductive health. But they have failed to secure sufficient votes to win in the General Assembly, where resolutions are generally adopted by consensus.

Update, April 23, 2019: This article was updated after the vote on the U.N. resolution passed, adding quotes from Nadia Murad, Denis Mukwege, and Jessica Neuwirth.

Robbie Gramer is a diplomacy and national security reporter at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @RobbieGramer

Sign Up

How a U.N. Bid to Prevent Sexual Violence Turned Into a Spat Over Abortion

This page is only accessible by Foreign Policy Premium subscribers.

FP Premium subscribers get insider access to in-depth research reports on complex topics with far-reaching geopolitical implications, as well as exclusive conference calls with FP’s editors and reporters, Foreign Policy’s award-winning print magazine, and advanced access to live events.

Subscribe to Continue Reading

Subscribe Now

This page is only accessible by Foreign Policy Premium subscribers.

FP Premium subscribers get insider access to in-depth research reports on complex topics with far-reaching geopolitical implications, as well as exclusive conference calls with FP’s editors and reporters, Foreign Policy’s award-winning print magazine, and advanced access to live events.